The extant <i>Chaoborus</i> assemblage can be assessed using subfossil mandibles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. Assemblages of Chaoborus were examined in 80 thermally stratified southern central Canadian Shield lakes to explore whether subfossil mandibles could be useful in assemblage‐level studies of Chaoborus. 2. Chaoborus (Sayomyia) (probably Chaoborus punctipennis in this study region) and Chaoborus flavicans were the most common taxa recorded, while Chaoborus trivittatus was rarer. Chaoborus americanus was not recorded in subfossil assemblages, because no fishless lakes were included in this study. Chaoborus flavicans had higher relative abundances (%) in lakes with higher dissolved organic carbon (DOC), probably because of reduced fish predation in less transparent water. 3. Results from logistic regression indicate that patterns of presence/absence for Chaoborus mandibles in the study lakes were influenced primarily by hypolimnetic oxygen concentration, probably because of the presence or extent of a hypolimnetic refugium from fish predation. 4. Chaoborus species richness in lakes, derived from subfossil assemblages, did not differ significantly from species richness estimates derived from plankton sampling with a net. Patterns of dominance and coexistence [e.g. the widespread co‐occurrence of C. flavicans and C. (Sayomyia)] determined from subfossil assemblages agreed with previous studies of the contemporary living assemblage. 5. These results suggest that subfossil assemblages may be used as an alternative to nocturnal plankton sampling to carry out research on the community ecology of Chaoborus. 6. We propose a hierarchical conceptual model of assemblage‐level patterns of Chaoborus in temperate lakes. Chaoborus americanus dominates in fishless lakes, whereas in lakes with fish Chaoborus is typically absent where there is no anoxic hyplimnion. In lakes with anoxic strata, C. trivittatus tends to dominate in lakes with few fish; in the remaining lakes, C. flavicans and C. (Sayomyia) dominate, although C. flavicans is more relatively abundant in lakes with lower water clarity (higher DOC).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".